"Nuclear Emergency"

[old.Tohtori]

Screw the kids, i'd take a drink too. Offchance of cruesome death, a miniscule non-existant chance of SUPERPOWERS!

 

[old.user4556]

Not the question I asked G

A big part of the argument here seems to be that there's "no problem" and that the levels of radiation are pathetically small - so small that nobody should be worried and there's no real problem, not really.

So baby G gonna drink?

If someone gave me a glass of water and said "this is radioactive", then no I wouldn't, but if someone said "this water is contaminated" - I'm not sure I'd care what it was contaminated with, I still wouldn't drink it.

I won't ever have kids though.

 

[Wij]

If the level was just above normal and well within safety limits then yes. No problem. You don't show how much you love your kids by being stupid and irrational.

 

[Scouse]

It's obvious you don't have kids Wij

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes he does.

 

[Scouse]

Then I find what he said hard to believe. What about you Gaff?

Couple of workers have been taken to hospital with skin lesions today. They're goners

Edit: BTW - it's obvious that the devestation from the Tsunami has caused more immediate death and destruction - I'd not argue otherwise. But to say that the nuclear crisis is a "win" for nuclear is a joke TBH. There's increased radiation levels all over the country and whether they're "dangerous" or not, it's not a good thing. Caesium 137 from the Jap plants has been found as far away as Korea ffs.

It's compounding the worries that the Japanese already have and it's a problem that they could well do without tbfh.

 

[Raven]

Not necessarily.

 

[DaGaffer]

Then I find what he said hard to believe. What about you Gaff?

I wouldn't give her the drink, but I freely admit to hypocrisy in these matters. I wouldn't give her tap water from anywhere.

 

[Scouse]

I wouldn't call it hypocricy mate. If you're not doing *everything* possible to protect your children then you're a bit weird. Your concience has to be clear - and if you've a worry about tap water (valid or not) then you've got to act - or how would you sleep at night?

I do feel for parents. Never wanted kids but have a huge amount of empathy for 'em.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily what Raven? Did you want to disagree with something but couldn't figure out what about?

 

[Wij]

Then I find what he said hard to believe.

I'm just not prissy about radiation. I'm very logical about things like that. If I wanted to protect my kids from slightly increased radiation then I'd never put them on a plane or holiday in Cornwall. If I know the levels are safe then they're safe, end of. Everyone is exposed to radiation all the time, even my kids.

 

[Raven]

Posted at 9:12

Not necessarily.

Last edited by Scouse; Today at 09:14 AM. - Original post 9:09

Then I find what he said hard to believe. What about you Gaff?

Couple of workers have been taken to hospital with skin lesions today. They're goners

____________________________________________________
Edit: BTW - it's obvious that the devestation from the Tsunami has caused more immediate death and destruction - I'd not argue otherwise. But to say that the nuclear crisis is a "win" for nuclear is a joke TBH. There's increased radiation levels all over the country and whether they're "dangerous" or not, it's not a good thing. Caesium 137 from the Jap plants has been found as far away as Korea ffs.

It's compounding the worries that the Japanese already have and it's a problem that they could well do without tbfh.

Not necessarily what Raven? Did you want to disagree with something but couldn't figure out what about?

You aren't very bright are you?

 

[Scouse]

I'm just not prissy about radiation. I'm very logical about things like that. If I wanted to protect my kids from slightly increased radiation then I'd never put them on a plane or holiday in Cornwall. If I know the levels are safe then they're safe, end of. Everyone is exposed to radiation all the time, even my kids.

So you're saying you would deliberatley expose them to additional radiation that they wouldn't otherwise get exposed to?

Look. I'm not prissy about levels of radiation either. I'm saying there's additional risk. Not just that, it's a risk that's not been quantified properly.

If radioactive isotopes of caesium are turning up in detectable levels in Korea then the level of fallout in the area around Fukishama is more than likely of more serious consequence.

This is an ongoing chronic problem, not an acute one-time only issue. Radioactive particulate emissions are still spewing uncontrolled from the reactors - it's not like it's magically stopped. And it looks like that situation is going to go on for months - until they cool the reactors enough to be able to (most likely) concrete over their problem.

The "safety" of the plants is a joke. The cooling pools are holding more rods than they were originally designed for. When the power company stated "the risk of re-criticality is not zero" hardly anybody blinked - but that was because the power company wasn't being exactly forthright about the fact that an entire reactor core was currently sitting in one of these coolant pools along with the rods.

So, a risk (however small, we don't know) existed of having an exposed nuclear reactor core self-start it's reaction so it could burn away uncontained on the surface of the planet.

I even have no problems with the figures about deaths from coal and other technologies. Perfectly happy to accept them.

However, my beef is about nuclear's potential to cause massive harm. Do we have to have a horrible disaster before we acknowledge risk?

It's the sort of problem that keeps on giving too. For example - a sample of soil was taken from a farm 40Km away from the plant with over 1600 times the natural level of background radiation in it. That's soil. Y'know. The thing we plant stuff in and grow stuff year after year?

 

[Raven]

So you're saying you would deliberatley expose them to additional radiation that they wouldn't otherwise get exposed to?

Look. I'm not prissy about levels of radiation either. I'm saying there's additional risk. Not just that, it's a risk that's not been quantified properly.

If radioactive isotopes of caesium are turning up in detectable levels in Korea then the level of fallout in the area around Fukishama is more than likely of more serious consequence.

This is an ongoing chronic problem, not an acute one-time only issue. Radioactive particulate emissions are still spewing uncontrolled from the reactors - it's not like it's magically stopped. And it looks like that situation is going to go on for months - until they cool the reactors enough to be able to (most likely) concrete over their problem.

The "safety" of the plants is a joke. The cooling pools are holding more rods than they were originally designed for. When the power company stated "the risk of re-criticality is not zero" hardly anybody blinked - but that was because the power company wasn't being exactly forthright about the fact that an entire reactor core was currently sitting in one of these coolant pools along with the rods.

So, a risk (however small, we don't know) existed of having an exposed nuclear reactor core self-start it's reaction so it could burn away uncontained on the surface of the planet.

I even have no problems with the figures about deaths from coal and other technologies. Perfectly happy to accept them.

However, my beef is about nuclear's potential to cause massive harm. Do we have to have a horrible disaster before we acknowledge risk?

It's the sort of problem that keeps on giving too. For example - a sample of soil was taken from a farm 40Km away from the plant with over 1600 times the natural level of background radiation in it. That's soil. Y'know. The thing we plant stuff in and grow stuff year after year?

What do you suggest then? We either accept the very small risk of their being a radioactive leak with nuclear or we pump out billions of tons of CO2 and use a finite and increasingly expensive fuel source. Shale gas looks like an alternative but again, its finite and a pollutant.

The only other options are that we stop using electricity or we pull a viable alternative fuel out of a magic hat. Current tech with wind and solar aren't even close to being efficient enough for all our power use.

 

[Wij]

So you're saying you would deliberatley expose them to additional radiation that they wouldn't otherwise get exposed to?

Look. I'm not prissy about levels of radiation either. I'm saying there's additional risk. Not just that, it's a risk that's not been quantified properly.

rest of post is a different argument...

The levels of Iodine-131 (iirc) found in the water were at a level that is considered unsafe if drunk for A YEAR. The half-life of it is 8 days. Safety limits are also very conservatively set. Drinking that water for a few days is then considered PERFECTLY SAFE. I'd be much more worried about making sure my kids are properly hydrated in a hot country tbh.

I increase my children's radiation dose every time I give them a cuddle but it doesn't stop me because I know it's within safe limits.

Do you want me to post the radiation-level .png again ?

 

[Scouse]

You aren't very bright are you?

Oh give over. Fair enough you pulling me up but you didn't need to requote everything. I ain't got time to check every little detail

Anyway, I'm guessing by saying "not necessarily" you're trying to say that if they don't die then it's "not really a problem" or something?

My money's still, sadly, on my initial suspicion

 

[Scouse]

Let me put it this way Wij - if you had a bottle of water with background-levels of radiation or tap water which you knew to have elevated levels of radiation - which would you choose to give to your kids?

Also you could post the radiation .png again if you like. It's remarkably like the diagram I studied in university. But still cool.


- Raven. I've seen your reply and you make zero attempt to talk about any of the points I raised about risk. You attempt to move the argument somewhere else (global warming).

However, I'm more than happy to talk to about that (despite it being totally unfair that you seem to expect me to be able to solve the global warming crisis before my stance against nuclear is "allowed" to be valid). Renewable sources are much cheaper than nuclear if you factor in the waste "disposal" costs (disposal being in quotes because we've no idea what to do with the shit). Also, although I don't know much about the technology, thorium reactors may bring risks down to an acceptable level.

Got anything to say about risk, Raven?

 

[Wij]

Let me put it this way Wij - if you had a bottle of water with background-levels of radiation or tap water which you knew to have elevated levels of radiation - which would you choose to give to your kids?

That's a slightly different question actually, however, put like that, if you are proposing giving me a choice of two lots of water where the only difference is the level of radiation then I'd go for the lower one but I really wouldn't be bothered. If it had been shown to be at the level we talked about earlier then I would not go out of my way for the lower one or let my kids go thirsty for a second for want of it. Therefore, as I mentioned before, I would have no concern.

 

[Wij]

Renewable sources are much cheaper than nuclear if you factor in the waste "disposal" costs

What about of you factor into renewable costs pumped-storage requirements and/or gas-backup generators and remove the subsidies ?

 

[Raven]

Everything has a certain element of risk involved. The risk of a nuclear reactor causing real damage is tiny, the risk of a coal or gas fired power station causing real damage is huge, both globally and to the local environment, huge localised pollution or water and air, it is not even a risk of them causing damage, it's a fact that they do cause damage.

I still say that if anything this whole event has proven how safe nuclear is. A massive earthquake, a massive tsunami, loss of cooling systems, explosions, partial melt downs and it has still not caused (yet) any long term damage. This is the extreme end of the scale too. Most reactors are not in areas that are susceptible to earth quakes and tsunamis...I am certainly not particularly worried about the reactors in northern Europe/Britain.

I do agree with you on the fact that we haven't come up with a way to dispose of the waste but at least the waste is contained, not dumped into the atmosphere as it is with coal and gas.

 

[Scouse]

What about of you factor into renewable costs pumped-storage requirements and/or gas-backup generators and remove the subsidies ?

Don't you think the public footing the bill (not that we know what the bill wil even look like) for the waste "disposal" is a subsidy?

And why remove the subsidies from technologies that are still in their infancy? The nuclear industry has been subsidised to levels the renewable industry could only dream of.

But either way. Still cheaper.

As for Thorium reactors - as I've said, I don't know enough about the tec yet. Could be a game changer, could be another white elephant. I bet they get subsidised up the kazoo to get the tec off the ground though.

 

[Scouse]

Everything has a certain element of risk involved. The risk of a nuclear reactor causing real damage is tiny

I don't disagree with you on the carbon burning technologies. However, I'd argue with nuclear that the risks are real, possibly epic (proper use of the word) in scale, and have already been realised.

Small risks. (Not tiny). But disproportionately large in possible effect.

 

[Wij]

Don't you think the public footing the bill (not that we know what the bill wil even look like) for the waste "disposal" is a subsidy?

And why remove the subsidies from technologies that are still in their infancy? The nuclear industry has been subsidised to levels the renewable industry could only dream of.

But either way. Still cheaper.

Show me the figures then with no subsidies on either side, including building storage and backups for the whole wind supply which nuclear doesn't need.

And how come Wind firms can't turn a profit when they get payed FIT of 36p ?

 

[Scouse]

Show me the figures then with no subsidies on either side, including building storage and backups for the whole wind supply which nuclear doesn't need.

/incredulous

Surely you have them?

And how come Wind firms can't turn a profit when they get payed FIT of 36p ?

I'm sure they turn a tidy profit, otherwise they wouldn't be going up like Fukushima reactor all over the place. Especially with a FIT of 36p

 

[Wij]

/incredulous

Surely you have them?

So you don't. So your 'Still cheaper' claim isn't backed up.

 

[Wij]

I'm sure they turn a tidy profit, otherwise they wouldn't be going up like Fukushima reactor all over the place. Especially with a FIT of 36p

Renewable Energy Generation Ltd - Half Yearly Report

No profit.

 

[Scouse]

My company doesn't turn a profit yet my bank balance looks pretty healthy.

(Well, at least until I get the bathroom done this week).

Anyway, disposal costs of 85 billion. (I've seen figures of 120bn - but that's still a guess as they don't actually know how to dispose of it)

 

[old.Tohtori]

Bananas, bananas, bananas.

All one needs to say regarding radiation in things

 

[Wij]

Anyway, disposal costs of 85 billion. (I've seen figures of 120bn - but that's still a guess as they don't actually know how to dispose of it)

That's speculation but anyway, you need to divide that by the total number of kWh produced by nuclear power in the UK since it started to get a figure that's useful in this context. Even then it's not that useful since those reactors will be different to new ones. Does that figure also include waste from nuclear weapons research and production too ?

 

[Scouse]

From the hotbed of hysteria that is New Scientist:

Fukisima radioactive fallout nears chernobyl levels

There's currently no end in sight to emissions either. Estimates run into "months". Chernobyl burned for ten days.

Go on. Someone explain to me how this is a win for nuclear again.

 

[Zenith.UK]

From the hotbed of hysteria that is New Scientist:

Fukisima radioactive fallout nears chernobyl levels

There's currently no end in sight to emissions either. Estimates run into "months". Chernobyl burned for ten days.

Go on. Someone explain to me how this is a win for nuclear again.

The headline is a bit disingenuous, but the article itself seems reasoned and balanced.
The big difference, as the article states, is that Chernobyl's core itself was burning and spewing out particulates of everything in the core, not just iodine and caesium. In the case of the Japanese reactors, it's just the volatile elements (iodine and caesium) that are leaking from damage to the cores, not the cores themselves burning.
That said, there's 10x as much fuel material at Fukushima than there was at Chernobyl (1760 tons vs 180 tons).

I don't have the answers but if things carry on for more than a couple of weeks as they are, it'll go mainstream in the media once more.